While fellow billionaires rushed to abandon California before a landmark wealth tax snapshot locked in their liability, one of the richest people on earth publicly embraced what could be the largest personal tax bill in state history.
  • 1984@lemmy.todayEnglish
    1·
    1 hour ago

    The guy depends on Trumps goodwill, and Trump would punish him if he ditched the tax.

    • kingkong@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      8 hours ago

      sure i dont mind but rather do land value tax and all of them should have to pay 50% tax as if they liquidated their holdings then at the time of leaving and market value of all assets.

      like most wealth tax that is. income tax based then. 5% isnt even much remove income tax instead

  • x00z@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    12 hours ago

    When are they going to write an article about me for also doing this normal thing?

  • MyBrainHurts@piefed.caEnglish
    8·
    11 hours ago

    Didn’t know all 3 had or planned to move.

    I wonder how many would have to move before the tax actually becomes revenue negative (compared to not being implemented.)

    • boaratio@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      8 hours ago

      I’m sure they didn’t actually move. They just bought a house in another state and declared it as their primary residence.

      • fodor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Yes and then the audit will be entertaining. If they have multiple properties and fuck up, they could easily maintain residence.

        And whatever their residence is, if they do things that look like working while physically present in the state, they are at risk of being forced to pay.

    • jerakor@startrek.websiteEnglish
      71·
      10 hours ago

      The average tax income from billionaires in california looks to be around 10million a year. So combined the about 200 billionaires in california are paying 2 billion a year. Rough numbers would be that is 150 of them left then the one time tax would start being a negative income in 10 years. That assumes money stays flat.

      Honestly there is no way that this ends up being a serious net negative and these folks are still operating in California enough that they may fail to avoid residency review.

      • MyBrainHurts@piefed.caEnglish
        2·
        7 hours ago

        Estimates seem to vary but I’ve found a good few at 3 billion total from the wealthiest 200 Californians.

        Also, given the article noted that:

        Departing billionaires slashed projected one-time revenue from $100 billion to $40 billion, with Page and Brin’s exits alone costing California $26.7 billion.

        That implies the current tax revenue from billionaires would drop 60 or so percent. So, presumably tax revenue drops from 3 to 1.2 billion, just based on current flights (and ignoring knock on effects.)

        So, no one else leaves and we don’t count knock on effects, I’d guess it’d take ~ 21 or so years before this starts cutting. But, of course, knock on effects (folks decamp to say, Texas which seems to be snagging as many once Californian businesses as possible…) It’s going to be a very interesting, depressing experiment. (Really feels like a race to the bottom but that’s the America we know and,uhhh, love?)

      • kingkong@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        8 hours ago

        avg income tax from billlionaires 10 m a year ONLY thats so absurdly low and 200 billionaires paying 2 b a year is like 1% of their billions? holy fuk we need to increase the taxes.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    13 hours ago

    He doesn’t want others to think he’s as poor as those guys who cannot afford to pay these taxes.

    Edit: typo

    • Cherries@lemmy.worldEnglish
      401·
      11 hours ago

      These folks don’t actually wanna leave. Peter Thiel will blow a lot of smoke about how he’s totally gonna leave California because of Communisim or whatever, but there’s a couple things to keep in mind.

      1. The billionaires are spending mad money to fight this tax. This is not the action of someone who plans to leave the state.

      2. The infrastructure that makes the billionaires rich cannot be moved from California easily. A person is easy to move, a warehouse less so. Those assets can be taxed, even if the owner leaves the state.

      3. Fuck these guys. Billionaires do not contribute to the economy; they suck out the wealth and hoard it. Even in the worst case scenario of rich folks leaving the state with their ill gotten gains, the state wasn’t gonna get that money anyways The worst case scenario for California of the mythical “Wealth Flight” is a bunch of parasites moving elsewhere.

      These parasites have had it too good for too long. A measly little one time tax is a step in the right direction that I hope opens the door to more aggressive taxation on these dregs of society.

      • MyBrainHurts@piefed.caEnglish
        16·
        11 hours ago

        The billionaires are spending mad money to fight this tax.

        Mad for regular people money. From what I’ve read, what they’ve spent is a small fraction of what said tax would cost them (though if you’ve seen different, I love new info!)

        A person is easy to move, a warehouse less so.

        These folks don’t usually have warehouses, but whatever, say physical infrastructure. All that can stay, the boss can roll out, rock in Texas and take their private jet to and fro as needed. (Or, do their stuff remotely. I doubt Thiel is walking through cubicles etc.)

        The worst case scenario for California of the mythical “Wealth Flight” is a bunch of parasites moving elsewhere.

        The worst case is that the tax revenue that those billionaires bring (which sure, in a moral vacuum should probably be higher) goes elsewhere leaving California needing to plug the fiscal gap by taxing less wealthy folks or eliminating/reducing services.

  • Malica@lemmy.zipEnglish
    66·
    12 hours ago

    He’s actually a decent man, but I’m sure I’ll be hated for that opinion around here

    • willington@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      16·
      10 hours ago

      A slave owner can be decent to his slavee, right?

      And we can oppose slavery as an institution.

      Same with the billionaires. An individual billionaire might not be a pedo fascist. Possible? Sure. I still hate all the billionaires. Even the decent ones. Because allowing a single individual or a single familiy to hoard that much wealth is toxic to the society.

    • CptOblivius@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      9 hours ago

      Yes and no. He is really lieing about AI and misleading the public and investors. He may be more benign than most, but AI is harmful, even if just at the energy use/environmental impact side.